Since I've been name dropped, I guess I should say something.
First of all, this thread is continuing a discussion that I've had with people long before this forum started and that AA has continued and written a very eloquent OP for in another thread. I have always, since the beginning of Brawl's lifespan, thought that we went about nurturing Brawl, as an independent game, in a horrible manner. We made a LOT of mistakes in the first 6 months of that game, which is weird to me, since in the 6 months
preceding Brawl, I had gotten into more arguments with people on these very boards over David Sirlin's competitive design philosophy than almost any other time in my life; we threw all of that into the trash and embraced the "scrub" mentality that he discusses in his writings.
I had always been, am now, and will always be a proponent of throwing out the rulebook with each new iteration of the game. I firmly think that, even if a few top players understand the rationale behind most of the decisions the previous generation of Smashers made in relation to their one game, each successive iteration of Smash brings in such a massive influx of new players to the scene that without classes and Smash history books, teaching all of those players the ways of the old guard is just impractical. So, forcing all of the old rules on them as though they are law and not simply the result of an accident of which game was being played by which people at the time is suicide (and obviously, that was the case with Brawl; the community, though still kind of ok right now, essentially cannibalized itself less than 2 years in).
It is important to start at square one and let all of these new players, under the wise guidance of what older players remain, figure out on their own that 1 v 1 is better than FFA or what number of stocks is best because:
A ) our old answer MAY NOT BE RIGHT anymore, and
B ) by
telling them what the answer will be, whether it's the right or wrong answer, we stop them from experimenting with ideas we didn't even think of and coming to a better answer for the new game.
For instance, I have many times said that Brawl 1v1 is more fair, more balanced, less broken, allows more viable characters, weakens most of top tier, and removes OP strategies when a VERY curated list of items (with a corresponding counterpick system) set on low is introduced. This is tested, it's true, it works. I spend over a year, more including side stuff, of my life with various people on and off line testing this theory. The proof is there. Brawl with items is competitive. As Overswarm correctly stated, the results of ISP tournaments are consistent, and they aren't viewed with as much salty rage as Melee item events were. It's a perfectly viable, very fair, very balanced way to play.
But, items were turned off from day one in Brawl. No, side events don't count; there was NEVER a serious national item event until WHOBO 1, and guess what? I ran that event and it was beautiful. It was a 2v2 event, and we had to cancel the 1v1 event due to a scheduling conflict with the anniversary of the resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ ( -_- ) , but guess what? M2K, who teamed with Inui and
won the 2v2 event, personally came up to me and expressed his disappointment because the 2v2 went so well.
MANY parts of Brawl were like that. Stages lasted a grand total of about 3 weeks before bans were made, hard bans that last to this day. It's been over 6 years and we haven't undone the damage of being stubborn and closed-minded on day 1 of Brawl's lifespan.
So, guess what? Here's
my recommendation for how we handle SSB4:
no regional or national events in the United States with a cash prize for at least 365 days after the release of the game. Have all the locals you want, but there
should not be a tournament scene for the first year at all. No money should be on the line. The first year should be nothing but Smashfests and time spent in the lab. This will take dedication. Players who live off the game will have to get a job. TOs who rely on their events will have to lose money on events for a year, most likely.
This is a good thing, because it means only the most passionate who actually CARE about the game will be active. In that time, literally EVERY possible combination should be tested. Coin mode? Go for it. 7 stocks? Have fun. And, yes, items?
I'll be restructuring the ISP thread myself. Now that I'm out of college, I'm planning on dedicating my life to that thread again, organizing events nationwide (and locally), re-testing all of the new items, rebuilding the recommended counterpick and ban lists, and building a ruleset that we can all agree on will be competitively viable.
This is literally the
only way to make SSB4 as healthy a game as possible, competitively. We can't use the same tired old philosophies as the traditional FGC uses, recycling their rulesets with every new game on day one because so little of the core mechanics have changed. We can't afford to do that. We have to teach a massive new influx of players not only how to play, but how to be a part of a competitive community, how to debate properly their ideas, how to integrate in and interact with the existing playerbase. We have to figure out the best ways to play the game, without bias, only caring about what's best for the community.
That's what I think we should do.
